Pages

Digital clock

Total Pageviews

Saturday, November 16, 2013

As I was looking over the Imprimis for September, the entire newsletter was devoted to a speech by John J. Miller of Hillsdale College on Football and the American Character. He starts the speech off as follows:

When we talk about football, we usually talk about our favorite teams and the games they play. The biggest ongoing story in the sport right now, however, is something else entirely. It’s not about the Bears vs. the Packers or Michigan vs. Ohio State, but rather the controversy over concussions and the long-term health effects of head injuries

On August 29, 2013, the National Football League agreed to pay $765 million to settle a lawsuit involving more than 4,500 players and their families, who had claimed that the league covered up data on the harmful effects of concussions. Although medical research into football and long-term effects of head injuries is hardly conclusive, some data suggest a connection. A number of legal experts believe the NFL, which will generate about $10 billion in revenue this year, dodged an even bigger payout.

Football, of course, is much bigger than the NFL and its players, whose average yearly salary is nearly $2 million. Football’s ranks include about 50,000 men who play for schools or in youth leagues whose pockets aren’t nearly so deep. A Colorado jury recently awarded $11.5 million to a boy who suffered a paralyzing injury at his high school football practice in 2008.How long will it be before school districts begin to think football isn’t worth the cost?

Earlier this year, President Obama waded into the debate. “If I had a son, I’d have to think long and hard before I let him play football,” he said. He also called for football “to reduce some of the violence.” Others have called for a more dramatic solution: Malcolm Gladwell, the bestselling author of The Tipping Point and other books, thinks football should go the way of dogfighting. He would like to see America’s favorite sport run out of polite society.

So football’s future is uncertain. But the past may offer important lessons. After all, football’s problems today are nothing compared to what they were about a century ago: In 1905, 18 people died playing the sport. Football became embroiled in a longrunning dispute over violence and safety — and it was almost banned through the efforts of Progressive era prohibitionists. Had these enemies of football gotten their way, they might have erased one of America’s great pastimes from our culture. But they lost — and it took the efforts of Theodore Roosevelt to thwart them.

Now at first blush you might think that this quote from the September issue of Imprimis is nothing, but in fact it is. In my mind we are seeing America being destroyed through the efforts of the current day Progressive era prohibitionists. The only thins is they are called Socialists and Communists. Also, in a way football leads to strengthen the American Character, and I will get into that in a future editorial. However, notice what Obama had said.

“If I had a son, I’d have to think long and hard before I let him play football,” he said. He also called for football “to reduce some of the violence.”

One of the reasons this sticks out to me is the fact that Obama decided to wade into it in the first place. He has many more important things (The economy, jobs, the Middle East) and yet he sees a shiny and is easily distracted by other things. This shows that he is out to destroy America one principle at a time.

From Pop Warner through high school and onto college and the pro (or semi-pro) level, football was meant to build character not only in others but also in ourselves. I will go through Miller’s speech little by little and pluck out salient points. In the meantime, you can subscribe to Imprimis here and read the September issue here so you can follow along throughout the coming weeks.

Join Rick Bulow and Valerie Santiago (Writer over at GOP is for me) as they go through the week in news. This week Obamacare had taken more hits. What happened? Also, the Tea Party is at the crossroads. Why is that? What path should be taken? All that and more including your calls and the return of Schmuck of the Week.

Come join us for Red, Right, and Blue at 1:30 PM Eastern, 12:30 PM Central. I will be in the chatroom, which this week is located at http://www.blogtalkradio.com/patricia-for-usa/2013/11/16/red-right-and-blue, 30 minutes early for last minute show prep and a meet and greet. The reason for the venue change will be explained during the show. If you want to engage the conversation, there are three ways to do so:

Call (914) 338-0211

Call in using Skype. As soon as the show starts there is a little Skype button (or as my good friend The Reactionariez calls it the Skipity Skype button) which will display next to the phone number at the top of the page. As soon as you press it just follow the instructions of the English Lady at the other end and you will be in the call queue

If you are unable to log into the chat, there is another way for you to engage the conversation if you use Twitter. Just tweet your comments or questions using the hashtag #RedRightBlue.

Tell your friends. Tell your enemies. Hell, tell a liberal. Red, Right Blue is back bigger and better than ever, and the conversation will always be engaged.

Saturday, October 5, 2013

In During Barack Obama’s first term, we had heard comparisons between him and Ronald Reagan or him and Abraham Lincoln. Now I will not touch the Abraham Lincoln comparison, but will say that there is no comparison between Obama and Reagan. Hell, there is not even any comparison between him and Bill Clinton.

What so I mean by that? Well, the past two major times that the economy was on the verge of a shutdown was during the Reagan years and then in 1995 when Clinton was president. Now both Reagan AND Clinton had the decency to reach across the aisle to the House Speaker (Reagan with Tip O’Neill and Clinton with Newt Gingrich) and try to avert or (in Clinton’s case) end a shutdown. In Reagan’s case, he was one who maintained a cordial relationship with O’Neill and would go out for a beer even though they were bitter enemies and possibly rip into each other over the bargaining table if we take what Chris Matthews wrote about in his book about Reagan and O’Neill. Also, I do not think we had read where Reagan or Clinton had deprived guests or veterans from going to the World War II memorial and paying homage to the greatest generation like Obama has done recently.

In fact, the picture (posted to the left) says it all. From Gerald Ford to Bill Clinton, there were 17 prior shutdowns among the five presidents and they were ALL negotiated. There were no shutdowns under George W. Bush probably because of what happened on September 11, 2001 to bring both Republicans and Democrats together. Now under Obama this is the largest shutdown and this is because both Obama and Harry Reid (Senate Democrat, aka Majority, Leader from Nevada, have shut down the Federal Government because they REFUSE to give the common people the same waivers that Obama has ALREADY given to Big Corporations, Unions, Congress, and other Democrat donors. The reason the Republicans took over the House in 2010 is because they had seen Obama ram ObamaDoesn’tCare (f/t to Herman Cain) down out throats, and when Princess Pelosi said that they “need to pass the bill to find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy,” they are looking at it now and are wanting to pull a Snagglepuss and “exit, stage left even” from being subject to ObamaDoesn’tCare.

It seems that Reid had not read ObamaDoesn’tCare nor does he care to find out what is in it, leading the charge in the Congress and in the media by calling the Tea Party anarchists, arsonists, jihadists, and suicide bombers. Well let me tell you something Mr. Reid. If supporting and defending the Constitution of the United States, as well as wanting to get back to the founding principles that made America exceptional, is what makes one a suicide bomber, well then I do not speak for my listeners or my co-host but count me in that number if ANYTHING to deprive you of that cushy Majority Leader office and position you so enjoy in the Senate. Just like Katy Abram told Arlen Specter at a town hall meeting in 2009, “you, dear sir, have awakened a sleeping giant.” Oh sure you might have maintained the majority in the Senate and your golden boy Obama has maintained the White House, but his downfall is coming. I know Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. I have lived under the administrations of Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. Barack Obama, dear sir, is NO Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton. And the People have seen it and are rising up to try to do whatever they can to make sure Obama’s reign of errors comes to an end in a legal fashion.

Join Rick Bulow and Valerie Santiago as they go through the week in news. Washington D.C was paralyzed by another shooting, this time by Capitol Hill. Who was involved? Also, The government had experienced a shutdown. How did the Congressmen handle it? What happened at the memorials? A couple of weeks ago Ted Cruz (Republican Senator from Texas) had delivered a 21 hour speech on the Senate floor. What were the top 5 highlights from it? All that and more on this week’s show.

Come join us for Red, Right, and Blue at 1:30 PM Eastern, 12:30 PM Central. I will be in the chatroom, which is located at http://www.ownthenarrative.com/live, 30 minutes early for last minute show prep and also a meet and greet. If you want to engage the conversation with me during the show, there are three ways to do it:

You might be a TRUE AMERICAN if:It never occurred to you to be offended by the phrase, 'One nation, under God.'You might be a TRUE AMERICAN if:You've never protested about seeing the 10 Commandments posted in public places.You might be a TRUE AMERICAN if:You still say 'Christmas' instead of 'Winter Festival.'You might be a TRUE AMERICAN if:You bow your head when someone prays.You might be a TRUE AMERICAN if:You stand and place your hand over your heart when they play the National Anthem.You might be a TRUE AMERICAN if:You treat Viet Nam vets with great respect, and always have.You might be a TRUE AMERICAN if:You've never burned an American flag.You might be a TRUE AMERICAN if:You know what you believe and you aren't afraid to say so, no matter who is listening.You might be a TRUE AMERICAN if:You respect your elders and expect your kids to do the same..God Bless the U S A ! AmenAND YOU ARE A TRUE AMERICAN, IF YOU THINK THE NATIONAL ANTHEM SHOULD ONLY BE SUNG

As some of you know, when I started this show I started out with Courtesy of the Red, White, and Blue by Toby Keith as it is COURTESY of the Red, White, and Blue that I was able to host this very show, which I took the title from if you think on it. In fact, let me play that song for you right now:

After Barack Obama stole the election on November 6, I got to thinking of a new theme song for the show, and as you heard at the top I had found a good one in Real American by Rick Derringer. Just listen to the chorus:

I am a real American fight for the rights of every manI am a real Americanfight for what's rightfight for your life

For those of you on Twitter who had seen the #RedRightBlue hashtag you might have seen me mention that it is time for #RedRightBlue on #OTNN – a REAL SHOW for REAL AMERICANS. Well it is true. Just like what Alan said about true Americans, the same thing can be said for Real Americans.

Join Rick Bulow and Justin Kendall (producer of Red, Right, and Blue and the voice of FTR Radio) as they go through the week in news. This week a military panel sentenced Nidal Hassan to death for the attack on Fort Hood in 2009 that killed 13 and wounded many others. How should he die? Will it be soon? Also, the 50th anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr’s speech was this past week. Has the Left ruined it? What was said at the anniversary speeches? And Miley Cyrus was a lil twerky at the Video Music Awards Sunday. What did she do? What is the backlash from it? All that and more including your calls on the show today.

Come join us today at 1:30 PM Eastern, 12:30 PM Central for Red, Right, and Blue. I will be in the chatroom (which is located at http://www,ownthenarrative.com/live) 30 minutes early for some last-minute show prep and also a meet and greet. If you want to engage the conversation during the show there are three ways to do it:

Saturday, August 24, 2013

Podhoretz wraps up his speech on American Exceptionalism with a very exceptional challenge to us

In spite of all this, the liberal community seems to think that the rest of the world would be better off without the United States, or at least with it following the policy of “leading from behind.” Admittedly there are paleoconservatives like Pat Buchanan and libertarians like Ron Paul who agree on this point, but most conservatives do not believe that a radical diminution of American power and influence would be good for us or for the world.

Shortly before the election of 2008, then-candidate Obama declared that his election would usher in “a fundamental transformation of America.” The desirability of such a transformation—which would entail the wiping away of as many more traces of American exceptionalism as it will take to turn this country into a facsimile of the social-democratic regimes of western Europe—is the issue at the heart of our politics today. And in the long run, I hope and trust, Americans will reject such a transformation, and elect instead to return to the principles that have made this nation so exceptional—yes, exceptional—a force for good both at home and abroad.

As we had seen in the 2008 election, and again in the 2012 election, Obama is all about the fundamental transformation of America and rooting out those things which made America exceptional. As Norman Podhoretz wrote this in October, he was no doubt warning us not to vote for Obama during the November elections, but the dumbass, dumb masses (as Neal Boortz calls the low-information or no-information voters who do not give a rip about politics) decided to vote Obama for a second term because they wanted their “FREE STUFF” and if Romney were elected, then he would cut that out. We have one more chance in 2014 to elect those who will look after the will of WE THE PEOPLE and not WE THE MOOCHER. Otherwise we will be heading back into slavery (the last step in the Tytler Circle) and we will be living in the same conditions we have seen in Atlas Shrugged and during the Great Depression.

If you want to go back and read the article as a whole, you can find it on the Imprimis Archive site. Just look for the October 2012 issue. I might read more Imprimis articles as an editorial series in the future. For now, I will end with this. What will YOU do to keep America exceptionalism foremost? What will YOU do to make America the greatest country on earth?

#Join Rick Bulow and special guest Valerie Santiago (writer at GOP is for Me) as they give the week in news. Major Nidal Hassan was finally convicted of 43 counts in the November 2009 shooting on Fort Hood. Was it unanimous? What’s next? Also, the Republican National Committee is planning on moving its convention in 2016. What date do they have in mind? What benefits will come from this? Those questions and more including your calls today on Red, Right, and Blue.

Join us for the fun and frivolity that is Red, Right, and Blue today at 1:30 PM Eastern, 12:30 PM Central. I will be in the chatroom (which can be accessed at http://www.ownthenarrative.com) 30 minutes early for some last minute show prep as well. If you want to engage the conversation, there are three ways to do so:

Saturday, August 17, 2013

Last week I expanded on the notion that the poor are “comparatively few in number, and the laws don’t bind them together by the ties of irremediable and hereditary penury.” This week I will continue on that and then speak about the U.S in world affairs

As the great economist and social critic Thomas Sowell has demonstrated time and again, it is still the case that the poor in America “are comparatively few in number.” And except for the black underclass—whose size is generally estimated at somewhere between two and ten percent of the black community and whose plight has thus far resisted every attempt at alleviation over the past 50 years—it is also true that penury in the United States is neither irremediable nor hereditary. As Sowell shows, of those who live on the next rung of the economic ladder, more of whom are white than black, only three percent get stuck in the bottom fifth of the income distribution for more than eight years.

Elaborating on Sowell’s analyses, the economist Mark Perry writes:

In the discussions on income inequality and wage stagnation, we frequently hear about the “top 1%” or the “top 10%” or the “bottom 99%” and the public has started to believe that those groups operate like closed private clubs that contain the exact same people or households every year. But the empirical evidence . . . tells a much different story of dynamic change in the labor market—people and households move up and down the earnings quintiles throughout their careers and lives. Many of today’s low-income households will rise to become tomorrow’s high-income households, and some will even eventually be in the “top 10%” or “top 1%.” And many of today’s “top 1%” or top income quintile members are tomorrow’s middle or lower class households, reflecting the significant upward and downward mobility in the dynamic U.S. labor market.

No such mobility can be found in any of the member countries of the European Union, or anywhere else for that matter. Even in the dismal economic state our nation has fallen into today, it is still exceptional where the degree and the distribution of prosperity are concerned. But to this, modern liberals are willfully blind.

With all exceptions duly noted, I think it is fair to say that what liberals mainly see when they look at America today is injustice and oppression crying out for redress. By sharp contrast, conservatives see a complex of traditions and institutions built upon the principles that animated the American Revolution and that have made it possible—to say yet again what cannot be said too often—for more freedom and more prosperity to be enjoyed by more of its citizens than in any other society in human history. It follows that what liberals—who concentrate their attention on the relatively little that is wrong with America instead of the enormous good embodied within it—seek to change or discard is precisely what conservatives are dedicated to preserving, reinvigorating, and defending.

A similar divide separates liberals and conservatives as to the role America has played in world affairs. Consider the many apologies President Obama has issued for the misdeeds of which he imagines Americans have been guilty in our relations with other countries in general and the Muslim world in particular. Never mind that the United States has spilled blood and treasure to liberate and protect many millions of people from the totalitarian horrors first of Nazism and then of Communism, and that since 9/11 we have spilled yet more blood and treasure fighting against Islamofascism, the totalitarian successor to Nazism. And as to the Muslim world in particular, never mind that, as the columnist Mona Charen puts it, “of the last six wars in which the United States was involved (Kuwait, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya), four were undertaken to rescue Muslims and the other two (Afghanistan and Iraq) had the side benefit of liberating Muslims —to what end remains an open question.”

Over the past 80 years or so, we had to deal with Nazism, Communism, and now Islamofascism trying to take over the world, though we had dealt with Islamofascism in one form or another since the 1780’s. We had always been the world’s savior, so to speak, with Nazism and Communism, and for the past 12 years some people had put the blame on us for the rapid rise of Islamofascism since the attacks on September 11, 2001. With everything that is happening in Europe with the expansion of Sharia Law, I think we are ultimately the last stand in the world in preventing it, no matter how hard Obama is trying to change that with his apology tour and whatnot. If we want to keep America exceptional as WE know it, we need to continue to be the shining light for hope and capitalism in the world.

Join Rick Bulow and Justin Kendall as they bring the week in news. The RNC had their annual meeting this week. Did CNN and NBC pull out of the Hillary movie producing? Speaking of the Hillary movie two ultra-libs had protested over at NBC. Who were they and what did they say? And the RNC is eyeing three talk show hosts as debate moderators. Which three are they looking at? All this and more including your calls on today’s show.

Join us for another exciting episode of Red, Right, and Blue today at 1:30 PM Eastern, 12:30 PM Central. I will be in the chatroom (which can be accessed at http://www.ownthenarative.com/live) 30 minutes early for a meet and greet and also for some last minute show prep. If you want to engage the conversation during the show, there are three ways to do it:

Saturday, August 10, 2013

Last week we talked about the differences between a nation which put liberty ahead of equality, and those who put equality ahead of liberty. This week we will discuss more from de Tocqueville and what he had said on the differences between Americans and Europeans as well as the gap between rich and poor

Then too there is the assumption, blithely accepted by the party of economic equality, that the gap between rich and poor—or even between the rich and the middle class—self-evidently amounts to a violation of social justice. Yet far from being self-evident, this assumption stems from a highly questionable concept of social justice—one that rules out or minimizes the role played by talent, character, ambition, initiative, daring, work, and spirit in producing unequal outcomes in “the pursuit of happiness.”

Furthermore, both the assumption and its correlative concept of social justice run counter to the American grain. As study after study has shown, and as the petering out of the Occupy Wall Street movement has recently confirmed, what Tocqueville observed on this point in the 1830s remains true today: Americans, unlike Europeans, he wrote, “do not hate the higher classes of society” even if “they are not favorably inclined toward them . . . .” Which is to say that most Americans are not prone to the envy of the rich that eats away at their self-appointed spokesmen on the Left.

Nor are most Americans subject to the accompanying passion for economic egalitarianism that made for the spread of socialism in other countries. What explains the absence of that levelling passion is that it has been starved by the opportunities America has afforded millions upon millions to better their lot and the advantage they have been free to take of those opportunities—which in turn explains how unprecedented and unmatched levels of prosperity have been created here and how they have come to be shared more widely here than anywhere else.

Tocqueville also put his finger on a second and related reason for the persistence of this particular feature of American exceptionalism: “The word poor is used here in a relative, not an absolute sense. Poor men in America would often appear rich in comparison with the poor of Europe.” A story I was once told by a Soviet dissident provides an amusing illustration. It seems that the Soviet authorities used to encourage the repeated screening of The Grapes of Wrath, a movie about the Great Depression-era migration of starving farmers from the Dust Bowl to California in their broken-down pickups. But contrary to expectation, what Soviet audiences got from this film was not an impression of how wretched was the plight of the poor in America. Instead they came away marvelling that in America, “even the peasants own trucks.”

Tocqueville further observed that in America, “the poor, instead of forming the immense majority of the nation, as is always the case in aristocratic communities, are comparatively few in number, and the laws do not bind them together by the ties of irremediable and hereditary penury.”

One thing I had found interesting is what de Tocqueville observed in America, as he wrote in the last paragraph, that the poor are “comparatively few in number, and the laws don’t bind them together by the ties of irremediable and hereditary penury.” Looking at America of the 21st Century you would have considered de Tocqueville crazy for writing that, but if you look at some of the plantations in the South, as well as some of the homes in the North, during the times before the Civil War you would think different. Actually, it was AFTER the Civil War (or the War Between the States, the war of Southern Independence, whatever you want to call it) where you see the lack of the nouveau riche and the sophistication that was popular before 1861. Keep in mind the South was in a total state of disarray and their main lifestyle was almost obliterated. The South had to rebuild somehow during reconstruction, but the economy had undergone a change in the south, and as such the poor (not only in the south but in the north as well) began to form the immense majority of the nation.

And if you look around the world, this is what Socialism and socialistic policies bring about as well. I am thinking Podhoretz is warning against this in the article, and if we fail to heed his words, then we will wind up like what we had read and seen in Atlas Shrugged.

join Rick Bulow and Billie Cotter ( Host of the Cotter Café on Own The Narrative) as they give you the news of the week. This week Reince Preibus, the Chairman of the Republican National Committee, has lashed back against CNN and NBC for planning to air the Hillary Clinton film. What did he say? How did CNN and NBC react? Also, there are major changes at Fox News Channel and it has one host over at CNN up in arms. Who is this host and what did he say? All that and more including your phone calls, on the show today

Come join us today at 1:30 PM Eastern, 12:30 PM Central, for another wonderful episode of Red, Right, and Blue. I will be in the chatroom (located at http://www.ownthenarrative.com/live) 30 minutes early for some last minute show prep and a meet and greet. If you want to engage the conversation during the show, there are three ways to do it:

Call 832-699-0449

Skype in to OTNNetwork

If you are on Twitter but unable to access the chatroom, you can use the hashtags #RedRightBlue and #OTNN throughout the show.

Tell your friends. Tell your enemies. Hell, tell a Liberal. This is bound to be a wonderful show as always complete with an announcement by me as well. If you want to know what the announcement is, you are going to have to tune in to see what it is or wait until I announce it on my blogs.

Saturday, August 3, 2013

So far as liberty is concerned, until recently no one but libertarians have been arguing that we were insufficiently free in the United States. If anything, some conservatives, dismayed by such phenomena as the spread of pornography and sexual license, thought that we had too much freedom for our own good. But thanks to modern liberalism’s barely concealed hostility to the free market, not to mention the threat posed by Obamacare to religious and economic freedom, many conservatives are now echoing these libertarian arguments, if in a milder form.

Judging by what they say and the policies they pursue, modern liberals are not all that concerned about liberty. What they really care about, and what they assign a higher value to, is economic equality (as reflected in the now famous phrase, “spread the wealth around”). Yet here is what the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan wrote in 1976 about this very issue in connection with the redistributionist ideology then regnant at the United Nations:

And equality . . . what is the record? The record was stated most succinctly by an Israeli socialist who told William F. Buckley, Jr. that those nations which have put liberty ahead of equality have ended up doing better by equality than those with the reverse priority . . . . This is our case. We are of the liberty party, and it might surprise us what energies might be released were we to unfurl those banners.

Four years later, Ronald Reagan came along to unfurl those banners. And just as Moynihan predicted, the result was the release of new political and economic energies that reversed the political and economic decline of the Carter years and that led to our victory in the Cold War.

Of course, the party of liberty Moynihan was talking about was the United States of America and the party of economic equality was the socialist countries of what was then called the Third World. But within America today, an analogous split has opened up, with the Republicans constituting the party of liberty and the Democrats more and more becoming the party of redistribution. Hence the Democrats never stop claiming that the rich are failing to pay their fair share of taxes. Yet after surveying the numbers, the economist Walter Williams of George Mason University asks an excellent question: “What standard of fairness dictates that the top ten percent of income earners pay 71 percent of the federal income tax burden while 47 percent of Americans pay absolutely nothing?” To which an editorial in the Wall Street Journal replies: “There is nothing fair about confiscatory tax policy that reduces growth, denies opportunity, and keeps more people in poverty.”

Normally I would not agree or endorse anything a Democrat says, but I think Moynihan hits the proverbial nail on the head with this statement in regards to American Exceptionalism. Read that one part once more:

The record was stated most succinctly by an Israeli socialist who told William F. Buckley, Jr. that those nations which have put liberty ahead of equality have ended up doing better by equality than those with the reverse priority (emphasis mine)

Even Moynihan, who was a sociologist, recognized the need of putting liberty ahead of equality. In doing so, the nation had ended up doing better by equality than those who put equality ahead of liberty. Today under Obama, and I will go so far as to say under the other two Democrats (Carter and Clinton) as well, America is putting equality ahead of liberty, and as such we are failing. There had been a couple of times (from 1981 – 1989 under Ronald Reagan and also in George W. Bush's first term from 2001 – 2005) in which America was successful because we put liberty ahead of equality, but that is only 12 years in the past 36 years. All the other times (and granted I did vote for George W. Bush for reelection in 2004) the presidents put equality ahead of liberty, and this is the mess we are in now.

This also leads to the Tytler Cycle that I had mentioned many times in the past.

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury. "From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising them the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. "The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: "From bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to apathy; from apathy to dependence; from dependency back again into bondage."

There had been a few times in which both Reagan and Bush 43 have kept or put us back into the courage to liberty stage, but more often than not the presidents had moved us into the selfishness to apathy or even apathy to dependency stage, with Obama doing his damnedest to put us in to the dependency to bondage stage. The reason he has not is because of we the people and how WE maintain those traits which make America great and exceptional.

Join Rick Bulow and Billie Cotter (host of the Cotter Café every Sunday at 7 PM Eastern on Own The Narrative) as they bring you the week in news. An editor at a newspaper in Chattanooga was fired for putting out a rather unflattering editorial of Obama. What was the editorial and why was the editor fired? Also, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee (Moonbat Democrat from the Texas’ 18th District) is in the running for Secretary of Homeland Security. Is she a better choice or a worse choice than Janet Neapolitano? And New York City is having their welfare food not going toward Welfare. Where is it going and how much? All those questions and more will be answered today.

Join us today for Red, Right, and Blue at it’s original time of 1:30 PM Eastern, 12:30 PM Central. I will be in the chatroom, which can be accessed at http://www.ownthenarrative.com/live, 30 minutes early for a little last minute show prep and also for a lil meet and greet. If you want to engage the conversation during the show, there are three ways you can do it:

Call 832-699-0449

Skype in to OTNNetwork

If you are unable to access the chatroom but are on Twitter, use the hashtag #RedRightBlue and #OTNN

Tell your friends. Tell your enemies. Hell, tell a liberal. The show is bound to be a real blastyhoot, and you never know what will be said next.

Saturday, July 27, 2013

Last week we had explored what Alexis de Tocqueville and Henry Adams had said about American Exceptionalism. This week I will just ask a simple question: Compared to what is America so bad?

On the other hand, there have always been defenders of American exceptionalism as a vital force for good. Thus, several decades before switching sides, Henry Adams charged America’s foreign critics with blindness to the country’s amazing virtues. Whereas, Adams wrote, European philosophers and poets could see only rapacity and vulgarity here, the poorest European peasants could discern that “the hard, practical money-getting American democrat was in truth living in a world of dream” and was “already guiding Nature with a kinder and wiser hand than had ever yet been felt in human history.” It was this dream, Adams went on to say, that beckoned to the poor of the old world, calling upon them to come and share in the limitless opportunities it offered—opportunities unimaginable anywhere else.

For a long time now, to speak personally, I have taken my stand with the young Adams, to whom America was exceptionally good, against his embittered older self, to whom it had become exceptionally bad. In my own younger days, I was on the Left, and from the utopian vantage point to which leftism invariably transports its adherents, it was the flaws in American society—the radical 1960s trinity of war, racism, and poverty—that stood out most vividly. It rarely occurred to me or my fellow leftists to ask a simple question: Compared to what is America so bad?

From our modern perspective, much more was wrong with Periclean Athens, or the Italy of the Medicis, or England under the first Queen Elizabeth, or 19th-century Russia under the Romanovs. But this has not disqualified them from being universally ranked among the highest points of human civilization and achievement. After more than 40 years of pondering the question “Compared to what?” I have come to believe with all my heart that the United States belongs on that exalted list. It is true that we have not earned a place on it, as the others mainly did, by our contribution to the arts. Yet it is worth pointing out that even in the sphere of the arts, we have not done too badly. To speak only of literature, names like Walt Whitman, Mark Twain, Edith Wharton, Robert Frost, and many others attest that we have, in fact, done far better than might generally have been expected of a nation conceived primarily to achieve other ends. These ends were social, political, and economic, and it is in them that we have indeed excelled the most.

We have excelled by following our Founding Fathers in directing our energies, as our Constitution exhorts us to do, to the preservation of the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, as well as to the pursuit of happiness tacitly understood by the Declaration of Independence to require prosperity as a precondition. (In his original draft of the Declaration, of course, Jefferson used the word “property” instead of “pursuit of happiness.”) By remaining faithful in principle—and to a considerable extent in practice—to the ideas by which the Founders hoped to accomplish these ends, we and our forebears have fashioned a country in which more liberty and more prosperity are more widely shared than among any other people in human history. Yes, even today that holds true, despite policies unfaithful both to the letter and to the spirit of the traditional American system that have resulted in a series of political and economic setbacks.

The question Podhoretz asked (Compared to what is America so bad?) is one we should be asking all of our liberal friends. See if this will get them to think and find out just WHY they think America is so bad. This will force them to do what Andrew Breitbart had said in Righteous Indignation when he brought up his Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Revolutionaries. If you remember, Rule 9 of the Primer dealt with not letting them pretend to know more than they do. In fact, let me read just a small excerpt from it when I did my editorial on that particular rule.

“Your opponents will pretend to be experts if you don't, but that's okay, because you can always puncture their balloon with one word: why. Asking them to provide evidence for their assertions is always fun, and it's even more fun asking them to provide the sources for that evidence. Attacking the fundamental basis of their arguments if fun, too - if they tell you health care is a right, ask why. Liberals don't have a why, other than their own utopianism and their dyspeptic view of the status quo and America. Reason is not their strong suit - emotion is. Force them to play on the football field of reason.”

As Andrew said, there is one word which we can use to puncture the false narrative propagated by the left, and even a few kooks on our own side. That word is why, a simple three-letter word with a lot of power and oomph behind it. If we ask why they think that, then they will have to come up with a reason. As we all know, reason is not their strong suit because they always rely on emotion.

As I had said at the end of that particular editorial, “We have the tools to force our opponents to play on the football field of reason. The thing of it is do we have the WILLPOWER to confront them and force them to play on that football field of reason, or are we afraid to do it?”

Join Rick Bulow and Billie Cotter as they give the week in news. Today is mostly going to be Open Phones due to the fact that Rick has his High School Reunion today. However, here ARE a couple of topics up on the plate for today as well. Governor Chris Christie (Republican from New Jersey) calls Senator Rand Paul (Republican from Kentucky)dangerous. Why did he do that? And the HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebellius is recruiting Bloggers to help sell ObamaCare. Why did she do that? What will come out of it? Those questions and more including YOUR CALLS will be coming up on Red, Right, and Blue today

Come join us today for Red, Right, and Blue now at a SPECIAL TIME of 12 noon or 12:30 PM Eastern (11 or 11:30 AM Central) today. The chatroom (which is located at http://www.ownthenarrative.com/live) will be open no earlier than 11:30 AM Eastern (10:30 AM Central) for me to do a little last minute show prep and do a meet and greet with those who show up early. If you want to engage the conversation during the show, there are three ways to do so:

Tell your friends. Tell your enemies. Hell, tell a liberal. The show might be early today, due to me attending my 20 year high school reunion, but it is always bound to be a blastyhoot (h/t to Bailey Connell [“Bail of Rights”] for that word) so come join us!

Saturday, July 20, 2013

Barack Obama says that there is no such thing as American Exceptionalism as much as there is British Exceptionalism or Greek Exceptionalism. Well there are many reasons to make America MORE exceptional, and I brought it out in last week’s editorial. Now we will discuss just how people had lost sight of American Exceptionalism.

At first, anti-American passions were understandably fuelled by the dangerous political challenge posed to the monarchies of Europe by the republican ideas of the American Revolution. But the political side of anti-Americanism was soon joined to a cultural indictment that proved to have more staying power. Here is how the brilliant but volatile historian Henry Adams—the descendent of two American presidents—described the cultural indictment as it was framed in the earliest days of the Republic:

In the foreigner’s range of observation, love of money was the most conspicuous and most common trait of the American character . . . . No foreigner of that day—neither poet, painter, or philosopher—could detect in American life anything higher than vulgarity . . . . Englishmen especially indulged in unbounded invective against the sordid character of American society . . . . Contemporary critics could see neither generosity, economy, honor, nor ideas of any kind in the American breast.

In his younger days, Adams defended America against these foreign critics; but in later life, snobbishly recoiling from the changes wrought by rapid industrialization following the Civil War, he would hurl the same charge at the America of the so-called Gilded Age.

We see a similar conflict in Tocqueville. Democracy in America was mainly a defense of the country’s political system and many of its egalitarian habits and mores. But where its cultural and spiritual life was concerned, Tocqueville expressed much the same contempt as the critics cited by Henry Adams. The Americans, he wrote, with “their exclusively commercial habits,” were so fixated “upon purely practical objects” that they neglected “the pursuit of science, literature, and the arts,” and it was only their proximity to Europe that allowed them “to neglect these pursuits without lapsing into barbarism.” Many years later, another Frenchman, Georges Clemenceau, went Tocqueville one better: “America,” he quipped, “is the only nation in history which miraculously has gone from barbarism to decadence without the usual interval of civilization.”

The main reason for the enduring power of the cultural critique was its fervent embrace, beginning in the late 19th century, by the vast majority of the writers, artists, and intellectuals who followed Tocqueville. And so it still goes in 2012, when the putative materialism and crassness of American life are harped upon in movies, television shows, novels, volumes of social criticism, and op-ed pieces too numerous to count.

Like Tocqueville and the foreigners cited by Henry Adams, moreover, these more recent works attribute this crassly philistine attitude to the love of money and “the exclusively commercial habits” that went with it—in other words, to the species of freedom that has done more than anything else ever invented to lift masses of people out of poverty and that would later be known as capitalism. America, these critics were declaring, was exceptional all right—exceptionally bad, or even downright evil.

We had seen the decline of American Exceptionalism in the late 19th century with the advent of the Gilded Era. This was also about the time that the government decided that they are best suited to teach out students and also when many had thought America was a democracy and not a Republic, but I will get to them in a later editorial. Today we see many not interested in politics (when it is all around us) or even sat that greed is bad and we need to share the wealth. That is NOT what American Exceptionalism is supposed to be about, and the more we fall down that path the worse off America will be.

Join Rick Bulow and Billie Cotter as they bring the week in news. George Zimmerman was found not guilty of killing Trayvon Martin. What does the Justice Department say about that? Also, what had Obama and the celebrities said in regards to it? Also, Detroit had filed for bankruptcy yesterday; however, a Michigan judge declared it unconstitutional. What was the reason he gave? And the Nobel Peace Prize Committee just got back at Obama. What did they do? Those topics and more including your calls and Schmuck of the Week will be highlighted on today’s show.

Come join the fun and frivolity that is Red, Right, and Blue today at 1:30 PM Eastern, 12:30 PM Central. I will be in the chatroom (which is accessed at http://www.ownthenarrative.com/live) 30 minutes early for some last minute show prep and also a meet and greet. There are three ways to engage the conversation during the show:

Tell your friends. Tell your enemies. Hell, tell a Liberal. Today’s show is going to be wonderful, and I will be announcing something hugely interesting, so you almost have to stay tuned to hear the big announcement.

Saturday, July 13, 2013

A couple of weeks ago I had said that someone had said that a friend and I just destroyed 60 years of “American Exceptionalism” for him. That got me to thinking, and in the Hillsdale College publication called Imprimis, there was an interesting article by Norman Podhoretz, former Editor-in-Chief of Commentary Magazine, entitled “Is America Exceptional?” Over the next few weeks I will be reading from it during this editorial. Here is the first part:

ONCE UPON A TIME, hardly anyone dissented from the idea that, for better or worse, the United States of America was different from all other nations. This is not surprising, since the attributes that made it different were vividly evident from the day of its birth. Let me say a few words about three of them in particular.

First of all, unlike all other nations past or present, this one accepted as a self-evident truth that all men are created equal. What this meant was that its Founders aimed to create a society in which, for the first time in the history of the world, the individual’s fate would be determined not by who his father was, but by his own freely chosen pursuit of his own ambitions. In other words, America was to be something new under the sun: a society in which hereditary status and class distinctions would be erased, leaving individuals free to act and to be judged on their merits alone. There remained, of course, the two atavistic contradictions of slavery and the position of women; but so intolerable did these contradictions ultimately prove that they had to be resolved—even if, as in the case of the former, it took the bloodiest war the nation has ever fought.

Secondly, in all other countries membership or citizenship was a matter of birth, of blood, of lineage, of rootedness in the soil. Thus, foreigners who were admitted for one reason or another could never become full-fledged members of the society. But America was the incarnation of an idea, and therefore no such factors came into play. To become a full-fledged American, it was only necessary to pledge allegiance to the new Republic and to the principles for which it stood.

Thirdly, in all other nations, the rights, if any, enjoyed by their citizens were conferred by human agencies: kings and princes and occasionally parliaments. As such, these rights amounted to privileges that could be revoked at will by the same human agencies. In America, by contrast, the citizen’s rights were declared from the beginning to have come from God and to be “inalienable”—that is, immune to legitimate revocation.

As time went on, other characteristics that were unique to America gradually manifested themselves. For instance, in the 20th century, social scientists began speculating as to why America was the only country in the developed world where socialism had failed to take root. As it happens, I myself first came upon the term “American exceptionalism” not in Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America, where it has mistakenly been thought to have originated, but in a book by the sociologist Seymour Martin Lipset, who used it in connection with the absence in America of a strong socialist party. More recently I have discovered that the term may actually have originated with Joseph Stalin, of all people, who coined the term in the same connection but only in order to dismiss it. Thus, when an American Communist leader informed him that American workers had no intention of playing the role Marx had assigned to the worldwide proletariat as the vanguard of the coming socialist revolution, Stalin reputedly shouted something like, “Away with this heresy of American exceptionalism!” And yet Stalin and his followers were themselves exceptional in denying that America was exceptional in the plainly observable ways I have mentioned. If, however, almost everyone agreed that America was different, there was a great deal of disagreement over whether its exceptionalism made it into a force for good or a force for evil. This too went back to the beginning, when the denigrators outnumbered the enthusiasts.

Notice the three things that Podhoretz said which made America exceptional:

A self-evident truth that all men are created equal.

To become a full-fledged American, it was only necessary to pledge allegiance to the new Republic and to the principles for which it stood.

In America, the citizen’s rights were declared from the beginning to have come from God and to be “inalienable”—that is, immune to legitimate revocation.

Other characteristics had come about in the 20th century that also made America exceptional, but for the purposes of today’s editorial I will focus on these three just briefly because these three have caused a lot of controversy today. Numbers 1 and 3 go together because we see them in the Declaration of Independence with the phrase “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that ALL MEN (i.e. humankind) are created equal, that they are endowed BY THEIR CREATOR WITH CERTAIN INALIENABLE RIGHTS, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” This proves that America was founded on a JUDEO-CHRISTIAN heritage. However, not many believe we were founded on a Judeo-Christian heritage, and I will be devoting an entire show to it. I will say to start of with that if Jefferson were to see what people had done to the phrase “Separation of Church and State” today as opposed to when he wrote it in 1802, he would be livid.

The second cause of what made America exceptional deals with citizenship. Not only were we the first nation to say that if you pledge allegiance to the Republic and the principles for which it stood, then you are a citizen but I will go ONE STEP FURTHER and say that if you recite this when you are a child AND you are born here, irregardless of your parents’ citizenship status, then you ARE A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. Many people say that the ONLY time children are national born is if their citizens are parents, and that is so far from the truth it is unreal. I can spend an entire show on this in the future, and I will, but today is not the day to do it.

Look for me to bring these three issues out in a later editorial and possibly show. America IS and ALWAYS HAS BEEN exceptional, and I aim to bring that out more on this show.

Join Rick Bulow and Billie Cotter as they bring you the week in news. The show is in Verdict Watch because the jury had received their instructions in the George Zimmerman trial for the murder of Trayvon Martin. What happened the last few days? Also, why was the judge so hard on the Defense team? The White House is now distancing itself from the Trayvon Martin case and also from Barack Obama’s previous comments. In other news outside of the George Zimmerman murder, Elisabeth Hasselbeck is making the move from ABC’s “The View” to Fox News Channel, where she will take over for Gretchen Carlson (who will be moving to a show in the afternoon) on the “Fox & Friends” Curvy Couch in between Steve Doocy and Brian Kilmeade. What did Elisabeth say on her last day? What did Kilmeade say about The View? All that and more including your calls and the ever popular Schmuck of the Week coming up.

Join us today at 1:30 PM Eastern, 12:30 PM Central for Red, Right, and Blue. I will be in the chatroom, which can be accessed at http://www.ownthenarrative.com/live, 30 minutes early for some last minute show prep and also a meet and greet. If you want to engage the conversation during the show, there are three ways to do so

Tell your friends. Tell your enemies. Hell, tell a liberal. While we are on verdict watch here on Red, Right, and Blue, we still manage to condense 168 hours of news into 2 hours and have fun doing it too!